Side Event of SEA of Solutions

November 24, 2020

“How to Expand Waste Management Service toRural Area?”

Regional Waste Management in AsianCountries
Michikazu Kojima
Research Fellow
Regional Knowledge Centre for Marine
Plastic Debris
Economic Research Institute of ASEAN
and East Asia

Website: https://rkcmpd-eria.org/

Chief Senior Researcher
Institute of Developing Economies, JETROThe fate of all Indonesia’s plastic waste, ineach archetype (million tonnes per year, 2017)
Mega Cities Middle and Rural
Small Cites
Total Generation

RemoteTotal

1.6Mt

1.8Mt

2.5Mt

0.9Mt

6.8Mt

Leakage into Sea, Lakes and Rivers

4%8%

12%

15%

10%

Dumping on Land

1%

3%

8%8%

5%Open Burning

21%

45%

61%

64%

48%

Official dumpsites

3%3%

14%

15%

9%

Managed Disposal

51%

29%

0%

0%

20%

Recycling

20%

12%

５％

0%

9%

46.7% of leakage is from Rural Area. 69％ of leakages is from Rural area andMiddle and Small Cites
Source: World Economic Forum (2020) Radically Reducing Plastic Pollution in Indonesia:
A Multistakeholder Action Plan: National Plastic Action Partnership.。

2

How to Expand Waste Management
Services in Rural Area?
• Rural area and Middle/Small cities are regarded as major source ofleakage of plastics to the ocean.
• To reduce the leakage of plastic waste to the ocean, waste collection
and disposal services should be expanded to middle and small cities,and rural area.
• But there are economies of scale in proper treatment and disposal
facilities, such as waste-to-energy plant and sanitary landfill.
• To utilize economies of scale in waste management, some Asianmunicipalities started to formulate regional or inter-municipal
cooperation on waste management.
• Contents of Presentation• Economies of Scale in Waste Management• Experiences to formulate inter-municipal cooperation around 1970 in Japan• Types of schemes regional waste management• Disadvantage of regional waste management and counter measuresEconomies of Scale in Landfilland Waste Treatment Facility

Reviews on Theoretical and Empirical
Justification of Inter-Municipal Cooperation• Bel and Warner (2014) reviews
recent multivariate econometricstudies on inter-municipal
cooperation and cost. Among 8studies, 7 studies deal with solid
waste management, while 1
study on water, electricity, gasand waste. Among 7 studies onwaste, 5 studies found intermunicipal cooperation saves cost
significantly,• Chapter 4 (Japan and Philippinedata) and Chapter 7 (Indonesiadata) in Kojima ed.(2020)
statistically confirmed theeconomies of scale.
• Fujii (2005) pointed out thatwaste treatment facilities such as
land fill and waste to energy plant
have a characteristics ofeconomies of scale. Optimal
inter-municipal cooperation area
is determined by balance
between the treatment cost andthe transportation cost.

Theoretical Explanation• Construction cost of incinerator or land
fill site is basically proportional tosurface area of the facility, in other
Length: Lwords, the square of the length. The
capacity of the treatment is
proportional to volume, which isArea of surface
proportional to the cube of the length. = 6L2(Fujii, 2005)
Volume= L3

Length: 2L
Area of surface= 24L2
Volume= 8L3

In this case, capacity of treatment(volume) become 8 times, whileconstruction cost increase 4 times.

Economies of scale in landfill site
• Larger landfills can be utilized to a greater height, that is, they
contain a greater load per unit aria of land. For example, assume
a square land area on ‘x2’ m. Landfilling is done up to a height of‘y’ m above ground level (GL) and a depth of 5 m below GL. Side
slopes of 1V:4H(above GL) and 1V:3H(below GL) are maintained.
Then the area and total air space available for landfilling fordifferent values of ‘x’ and ‘y’ are as following table.
X (m)Land Area(m2)Height above Air Space forground Y (m) landfilling

Factor increase inArea

Air Space100

10,0001082,000

11300

90,00015

1,302,667

917.5500

250,000

204,771,333

2567.3

Source: Ministry of Urban Development () Guidance Note: Municipal Solid Waste Management ona Regional Basis, India.

Unit Construction Cost of Open Dumping andSanitary Landfill in a Country in Southeast Asia
Landfill Y axis: Investment Cost per Capacity（LOG10）
X axis: Total Capacity m3 (LOG10）
7・Open Dumping ・Sanitary Landfill

65432
100-1

123456788

Thousand USD/ton of treatment
capacity

Investment Cost of Waste Treatment
Facility in a Country in ASEAN
200180160140120
100806040200

Incinerator

Anaerobic Digestion

Refuse Derived Fuel0100

200

300

400500Daily Capacity of Treatment (ton/day)

6007009Merits of Regional Waste Management• By inter-municipal cooperation, it becomes feasible invest in larger andadvanced facility for waste management. Otherwise each municipality
may not be able to invest in environmentally sound facility.
• Illegal dumping will be reduced by implementing planned collection• By inter-municipal cooperation, efficiency improve in cost, management,and operation, compared with single municipality collect and dispose
waste.
• It was difficult for a municipality to install crushing machine for bulky
waste. But by inter-municipal cooperation, it become feasible to invest
in the equipment and collect non-burnable waste.
• By Shredding and compacting machine, lifetime of landfill can beextended and contributor, which prolong the lifetime of shredding andcontribute to the environment.
.
Based on the survey to municipalities conducted bycentral government, cited in Chiba Prefecture (1977)10

Experiences to formulate intermunicipal cooperation around1970 in Japan

Japanese Experiences• The Waste Cleaning Act was enacted in 1900, under pandemic ofPlague. The area where municipality should conduct waste
management was only cities.
• The Public Cleaning Act was enacted in 1954.
• Waste management services should be provided in designated area.
• The governor of prefecture can require municipalities, which was not thedesignated area, to conduct waste management.
➢In 1961, in terms of population, share of designated area is 56.3％, while
18.3% of them did not receive waste collection services.

• Water Pollution Control Act was enacted in 1970

• Removed designated area for waste management. All municipalities, cities,
towns and villages should conduct proper waste management.
• Many cities, towns and villages formulated Partial Affairs Association totreat and dispose waste➢In 1970, population in designated area is 82.5% of total population, while
9.2% in designated area did not get waste collection services. In 1980,
population to be provided waste management services is 99.4% of total
12population, while 7.0% of them did not get waste collection service.

Number of Established Partial Affairs Association
concerning Waste Management
80708060
5060

4040302020

1000The number of established municipalities association conducting waste management
Percentage of population in disgnated area where waste collection services should be provided (until 1970）
Percentage of target population where waste collection service were provided (from 1971)
Self diposal rate (Until 1970 the rate in disgnated area, and after 1971 the rate in waste
Percentage of Poulation getting collection service

Number of Partial Affairs Association

Rate of population

100Regional Waste Managementin Chiba Prefecture in 1960sand 1970s.

63？
7676?

6572

Number of Association with Waste
Treatment/Disposal Facility
1960 1965 1970 1975
-64
-69
-74
-79
No. of Association

０677272?

2TokyoBay

Number of municipalities in an association: 2-11.
Number of Partial Affairs Association consistingof cities and town/villages: 10.
Number of Partial Affairs Association consistingof town/villages: 5.
Year of Establishment of Association
Year of Operation of Incineration Plant
Year of Treating Bulky Waste
Year of Operation of Landfill

71
74

61
71

69
66 71
66
67
69

67
68

71
71
76
77

65
65
65

71
66
66
70
71

Association forSewage

Associationfor Waste
Management

14Types of schemes regional
waste management

Inter-municipal cooperation

Types of Regional Waste Management
TypesRegional
Government
SchemeLeading
Municipality
SchemeExampleExplanation
Waste-To-Energy plant planed in Regional government make agreement
West Jawa, Indonesia.
with local governments in the region andaccept waste from them.
Waste to Energy Plant in Phuket, A municipality hosting waste treatment
Thailand and Kitakyushu city in or disposal facility make agreement withJapan.
and receive waste from othermunicipalities.
Partial Affairs Association in Japan Local governments formulate association
to treat and/or dispose waste jointly.

Municipalities’Association
SchemePrivate Sector Some private landfills accepting Private sector operates waste treatment
Leadingashesfrom
Waste-to-Energy and disposal facility which accept wasteSchemeplants in Japan. Some private from multiple local government.
landfills and RDF Plants inThailand.

JAPAN(1)• Local Autonomy Act enacted in 1947
• Partial Affairs Association• Wide Area Union (introduced in 1994 revision)• The number of Partial Affairs Association, Wide Aria Union
and alike dealing with municipal solid waste and/or humanwaste reached 459 in the of end of year 2016. Among 1320
Partial Affairs Associations and alike in Japan 34.8% aredealing with solid waste and/or human waste.
• After Japan made tighter emission standard on Dioxin,
Central government urges local governments to manage theirwaste jointly.

Japan (2) Fujisan Eco Park Incineration Center• Gotemba City (population: 88thousands) and Oyama
Towm(18 thousands) formulated
Administrative Association in1976. In the same year, firstwaste incineration plant wasconstructed. The current
incineration plant has operated
since 2015, which can treat 143
ton of waste per day.
• Type of Incineration: Stoker Type• Power Generation 2.5MW

Fujisan Eco-Park Incineration Center,
September 2019.

INDIA• Gujarat State is a leading case of• The legal framework on waste
inter-municipal Cooperation. A
management for India wasstudy conducted by Gujarat Stateestablished in 2000, by enacting
showed that if each urban local“Municipal Solid Wastes(Management and Handling) Rule, bodies (ULB) developed their own
treatment and disposing facilities,2000”. Although the legal
the cost of waste management
framework was developed, many
would be 25USD/ton. On the othermunicipalities, especially small
hand, decentralized treatment aturban local bodies, were not able
ULB and 36 regional landfill sites
to develop disposal infrastructure,
are able to reduce the waste
such as sanitary landfills,
management cost to 9.4 USD/ton.
because of lack of technical andUntil 2015, 93 vermicomposting
financial capacity (Ministry ofplants out of 159 ULBs, and seven
Urban Development, 2011). Some(7) regional landfills for 37 ULBs
state governments in India
had been constructed (UNEP 2015).
started to manage municipal
solid waste on a regional basis.

Indonesia• Landfills in Central Jawa andBali received waste frommultiple municipalities.
• These landfills wereregistered as Clean
Development Mechanism. By
reducing methane gas, thescheme aimed to earnrevenue from developed
countries, which are required
to reduce emission ofGreenhouse Gasses.

• West Jawa government is in
the process to develop
waste-to-energy plant near
Bandung.
• The provincial government ofWest Jawa will contract withprivate companies, whileprovincial government also
contract with Bandung cityand surrounding
municipalities on receiving
waste from thesemunicipalities.

Incentives and Challenges to Establish
Regional Waste Management• To formulate inter-municipal
cooperation, central
government should consider
some policies to support
formulating inter-municipal
cooperation in the field ofwaste management.
• First, the legal status shouldbe considered.
• Second financial incentive toformulate inter-municipalcooperation.

• There are some challenges tomaintain inter-municipalcooperation.
• The first challenge is change ofpolitical leader. Mayor and chiefof local-municipalities may bechanged.
• The second challenge is cost
sharing mechanism. Local
municipalities should share theoperation cost of waste to energy
plant or sanitary landfill. There
are possibilities not to reachagreeable condition amongmunicipalities.

Disadvantage of Regional
Waste Management andCounter Measures

To protect environment• Larger waste treatment
facilities and landfill site may
imply more nuisance to theneighbors.
• Proper control of odor, air
pollution, and wastewater should
be guaranteed.
• The increase of traffic of garbage
trucks is also nuisance along
access road.

• Otherwise, neighbors oppose
the construction of such
facilities.

• It is important to ensure theprotection of the environment.
• The emission and effluent data
should be open to the public.
• Access road should be properly
prepared, to reduce traffic jam.
• If possible, some facilities shouldbe open to the public, such as
swimming pool, spa or otherfacilities.
• In Japan, it is gradually recognizedthat waste to energy plant can bea center for supporting residents
at disaster, because the facility
generate electricity.

Not in My Back Yard (NIMBY)• Regional waste management
facility may be opposed bypeople living near the facility.
• It is important that facility
should protect surrounding
environment by various
pollution control measures.
• Not only the facility, but also
access road should be wider
than other road, to reduce thetraffic jam, due to garbage
truce.

• Kitakyushu City, Japan receive
waste generated in surrounding
municipalities, under following
condition:• The volume of waste from othermunicipalities is not so much,comparing remaining capacity of
waste treatment of Kitakyushu city.
• Use transfer station and bigger
trucks to reduce number of trips.
• Waste reduction and recycling
program, which is same level of
Kitakyushu city. Etc.

Transportation Cost
• Another demerit of regional
waste management increaseof transportation cost ofwaste.
• To reduce transportation
cost, transfer station can beused.
• Segregating wastes• Reduce water in waste

Compactor and Trucks at Transfer
station in Indore, India, April 2018

Transfer Station in
Guangzhou, China• A part of municipal waste
collected in Guangzhou aresent to transfer station.
Recyclable waste areremoved and sent torecycling facility. Water
contents are reduced.
Collected wastewater istreated. The rest of waste
are sent to waste to energy
plant or landfill.

A transfer
station in
Guangzhou
China, June2011.

• Ch.1 Regional Waste Management in Asia
• Ch.2 Inter-Municipal Cooperation andRegional Waste Management in Japan• Ch.3 Inter-Municipal Cooperation on SolidWaste Management in Japan: Its Challenges
and Implications for ASEAN Countries• Ch.4 Cost Efficiency of Regional Waste
Management and Contracting Out to PrivateCompanies• Ch.5 Promoting Local Collaboration on Waste
Management: Lessons from Selected Casesin the Philippines• Ch.6 Internal and External Factors in theDevelopment of Regional Waste Cooperationin the Greater Bandung Region• Ch.7 The Effect of Local Government
Separation on Public Service Provision inIndonesia: A Case of Garbage Pickup Services
in Urban Areas• Ch.8 Clustering and Public–Private
Partnerships: The Tools of Municipal SolidWaste Management Reformation in Thailand

Conclusion• To reduce leakage of plastic waste to the ocean, it is necessary toexpand waste management services not only in mega cities, but alsorural area and small/medium cities is one• To achieve environmentally sound management of municipal solid
waste, local governments should conduct proper treatment anddisposal of waste. Technology such as waste to energy plant andsanitary landfill is often too costly for small municipalities. Intermunicipal cooperation may be able to save some cost, because ofeconomies of scale in some waste management facilities, such as
landfill and waste to energy plant.
• A few countries in Asia, such as Japan, India, Indonesia, Thailand, haveinitiative to formulate inter-municipal cooperation. But most of Asiancountries have limited experiences and legal arrangement to conduct
regional waste management.
• It may be good to share the experiences within the region.

References (1)• Bel, Germa and Mildred E. Warner (2015) “Inter-municipal
Cooperation and Costs: Expections and Evidence” Public
Administration, Vol.39, No.1, pp.52-67• Fujii, Minoru (2005) “Advantage and Disadvantage inRegional Waste Management” Waste Management Research
Vol.16, No.6. pp. 328-333. (in Japanese with Englishabstract)• Kojima, Michikazu (ed.)(2019) Toward Regional Cooperationof Local Governments in ASEAN, IDE-JETRO.
https://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Download/Ec/20190
3.htm

References (2)• Kojima, Michikazu (ed.)(2020)Regional Waste Management –Inter-municipal Cooperation and Public and Private Partnershiphttps://www.eria.org/publications/regional-waste-management-inter-municipal-cooperation-and-public-and-private-partnership/• Ministry of Urban Development (2011) “Guidance Note:
Municipal Regional Waste Management on a Regional Basis”,
India.
• Ministry of Urban Development(2016) Municipal Solid Waste
Management Manual Part II: The Manual, India.